As Province of Bolzano I would like to integrate the statistics of usage of the suedtirolRadelt APP in the Open Data Hub, so to create a web-component and visualize them

[rcavaliere]

240524_SpecificheIntegrazione_NOI_v1.1.pdf

[rcavaliere]

@dulvui @clezag we should include this activity in the next sprint. If you have time, have a look at the specification document, on how we should integrate this dataset. I am still clarifying some open points with the Data Provider.

[sseppi]

We decided to externalize the development and @rcavaliere will manage the market research.

[rcavaliere]

@clezag @dulvui can you please support @Giacomo92 and @SanaviaNicolas in the implementation of their first Data Collector? They have some technical questions for you in relation on how certain aspects can be implemented. I would be ideal if you can arrange some short meeting with them in the next days. Thanks!

[dulvui]

@rcavaliere We had a short talk yesterday at the Open Data Hub day and we decided that we will have a meeting with them to clarify some aspects on how to write data to the Open Data Hub. Can you send me an email with their contacts? So I can arrange a video-call

[Giacomo92]

240207_SpecificheIntegrazione_NOI_v1.pdf @rcavaliere I have just uploaded the specification document with some comments as we agreed in our last call.

[rcavaliere]

@Giacomo92 here the document with the clarifications, not in track change mode, but hope you find all clarifications to you doubts. Actually, they are all minor points.

240524_SpecificheIntegrazione_NOI_v1.1.pdf

[Giacomo92]

I have just opened PR #669. Please let me know if it works correctly. @dulvui Here are some questions for @rcavaliere :

• What parameters need to be called on both endpoints? Let me know which data you are interested in retrieving from the web services
• On organisation webservice the _field id-challengeid (280 in the example) is not unique as station id. In my opinion it is better to choose id field (49256209, in the example).

[rcavaliere]

@Giacomo92 many thanks. We will integrate the PR at the beginning of next week, than I will provide you a feedback to these 2 points

[dulvui]

@rcavaliere @Giacomo92 I deployed now the first version of the data collector in testing Here the first visible GamificationAction stations https://mobility.api.opendatahub.testingmachine.eu/v2/flat,node/GamificationAction/

And here the CompanyGamificationAction stations, but no data is visible here yet https://mobility.api.opendatahub.testingmachine.eu/v2/flat,node/CompanyGamificationAction/

[sseppi]

Uau nice to see a new Dataset in the Open Data Hub.

@rcavaliere once we put online the new collector, we need to add the Dataset into the MetaData API to see it in the Dataset List on the Data Browser and the Open Data Hub website. There we need the following information:

• dataset name
• dataset description
• data provider

[rcavaliere]

@Giacomo92 can you please check this implementation? The source should provide data for both type of stations! More in detail:

• [ ] In the case of GamificationAction, we have just the station description but no types and data associated to it.
• [ ] Moreover we still need to agree on the "position" data provision (via the CSV) file.
• [ ] the fields "start", "end", "registrationStart", registrationEnd" in the metadata should be converted in a user-friendly format before stored
• [ ] in the case of CompanyGamificationAction we have no stations stored, and of course no types and data associated

[Giacomo92]

@rcavaliere

In the case of GamificationAction, we have just the station description but no types and data associated to it.

Ok I think it depends on the parameters that were passed in the API, if you can tell me which data you are interested in, I will already set the correct parameters on the API call

Moreover we still need to agree on the "position" data provision (via the CSV) file

_challengeid, latitude, logitude for GamificationAction _organisationid, latitude, logitude for CompanyGamificationAction

the fields "start", "end", "registrationStart", registrationEnd" in the metadata should be converted in a user-friendly format before stored

Which format do you prefer? I chose the timestamp by looking at other implementations in the repository

in the case of CompanyGamificationAction we have no stations stored, and of course no types and data associated

Ok I think it depends on the parameters that were passed in the API, if you can tell me which data you are interested in, I will already set the correct parameters on the API call

[rcavaliere]

Ok I think it depends on the parameters that were passed in the API, if you can tell me which data you are interested in, I will already set the correct parameters on the API call

As already described in the specification document, these are the types to be associated to a station = GamificationAction:

challenge_id, latitude, logitude for GamificationAction organisation_id, latitude, logitude for CompanyGamificationAction

OK, but where should I put this information? Can you create a CSV file (or similar), so that I fill in the positions?

Which format do you prefer? I chose the timestamp by looking at other implementations in the repository

Please use this kind of format, as you can see there for the dateTime fields: https://mobility.api.opendatahub.com/v2/flat,node/BikesharingStation/*/latest

Ok I think it depends on the parameters that were passed in the API, if you can tell me which data you are interested in, I will already set the correct parameters on the API call

Please have a look at the specification document, consider what provided in the paragraph COMPANY GAMIFICATION ACTIONS

I put the specification document again here. Please let me know in case of doubts, in case let us have a quick call

240524_SpecificheIntegrazione_NOI_v1.1.pdf